From: | David Roussel <pgsql-performance(at)diroussel(dot)xsmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2006-06-22 13:03:47 |
Message-ID: | 449A9533.1030103@diroussel.xsmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
>
> Here is a graph of our performance measured on PostgreSQL:
> http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/T2000-schaling-postgresql.png
>
>
...
>
> The "perfect" line is based on the "Max" value for 1 core and then
> just multiplied by the amount of cores to have a linear reference. The
> "Bij 50" and the "perfect" line don't differ too much in color, but
> the top-one is the "perfect" line.
Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was
perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the
number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In
such a case the graph will go through the origin (o,o), but you graph
does not show this.
I'm a bit confused, what is the 'perfect' supposed to be?
Thanks
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-06-22 13:05:41 | Re: CVS HEAD busted on Windows? |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2006-06-22 12:23:48 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig A. James | 2006-06-22 14:03:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Sven Geisler | 2006-06-22 12:19:58 | Re: Speeding up query, Joining 55mil and 43mil records. |